v7re at unb.ca
Thu Sep 18 23:38:25 EST 1997
Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> > I suspected that would happen. Bionet.agroforestry doesn't have anywhere
> > near enough traffic to spawn a new group. I've been involved in newgroup
> > creation before, and if you don't have enough readers to generate 100 posts
> > a day, a newgroup probably won't pass.
> Unless it were put into the alt groups- like, alt.forestry or whatever.
> Although many of the alt groups are pretty silly, there are some good
> ones. So this is an option. I'm for it if anyone else is. Actually I
> think one forestry group is fine except for the name. Maybe it should be
> alt.forestry.Caldwell.Staples.Zorzin. <G>
> > My wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. The gap between the
> > urban world and the rural world has become a vast chasm. Urban people
> > have no interest in rural concerns, and don't understand rural issues.
> > It's hard to even find a forum for discussion or rural topics. Agriculture
> > groups are dominated by backyard gardeners, and even the most ardent
> > ecofreak never considers actually doing any forestry.
> True, but there must be several thousand professional foresters in the
> world and several thousand loggers and countless sawmills and infinite
> numbers of forestry bureaucrats- and all the landowners- and all those
> evil ecofreaks- I just think most of these folks just don't know about
> this group- possibly that agro term in there is misleading them. On some
> newsgroup search engines, entering the term "forestry" doesn't find this
More information about the Ag-forst